MB123 - 1/4/2008 9:48 PMI would expect him to have the courage. That is his job.
alexterrell - 3/4/2008 4:11 AMQuoteWhen Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance. O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation. By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.Is this statement true?If it is true, then that means that NASA's role is not to conduct a Vision for Space Exploration, but to provide jobs.Providing jobs = added costs. You can't have a cheaper solution whilst providing more, or the same amount of jobs.
When Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance. O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation. By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.
alexterrell - 3/4/2008 3:11 AMQuotejkumpire - 1/4/2008 6:33 PMWhen Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance. O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation. By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.Is this statement true?If it is true, then that means that NASA's role is not to conduct a Vision for Space Exploration, but to provide jobs.Providing jobs = added costs. You can't have a cheaper solution whilst providing more, or the same amount of jobs. Across the World, Defence Departments do not engage in building missiles, ships, tanks etc. They procure them and operate them, and for good reason. Perhaps NASA needs to be banned from developing and building rocket launchers.
jkumpire - 1/4/2008 6:33 PMWhen Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance. O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation. By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.
alexterrell - 3/4/2008 4:11 AMAcross the World, Defence Departments do not engage in building missiles, ships, tanks etc. They procure them and operate them, and for good reason. Perhaps NASA needs to be banned from developing and building rocket launchers.
kkattula - 3/4/2008 11:58 AMThe problem is that to Congress, NASA IS mostly a jobs program. That could also be the saviour of Direct, because it saves more jobs than Ares I/V.
luke strawwalker - 10/4/2008 10:44 AMOne of STS's biggest failings has been it's enormous cost, which from what I've read has been in large part because of it's enormous standing army of workers to support the orbiter and STS infrastructure. Now the architecture is going to be changed, but the first prerequisite is to keep the large standing army of workers... so where exactly are the savings going to come from??
jkumpire - 1/4/2008 7:33 PMAt this point, Ares-I is the *only* way for Griffin to ever get his "big rocket" - which has always been his personal goal - ask anyone who worked with him at APL or OSC or anywhere else. He's really *driven* by rockets like Saturn-V.If Ares-I fails, his big rocket also fails, and that would mean he also fails - at least to himself, anyway. Of course nobody wants to fail, that's totally normal and true of Mike, you or I. Thus, to achieve his goal, he is "sticking the course" no matter what - and essentially praying for a miracle to come from somewhere.Even if Ares-I doesn't ever fly a crew, it still pays for J-2X and 5-segment SRB - both of which he needs for the big rocket. He has no reason to abandon Ares-I - even if it never flies.
jeff.findley - 11/4/2008 9:03 AMI don't think history is on Griffin's side. Look at how many times the space station was redesigned due to slipping schedules and escalating costs. If such a redesign is forced upon Ares/Orion, it could very well mean that something like Direct gets a chance. I'm not at all happy that the politicians want to "preserve" as many jobs as possible by keeping NASA in the launch vehicle business. NASA should be spending its resources designing and building lunar landers and LEO fuel depots rather than designing and building yet another launch vehicle architecture. This does mean shuttle job losses, but hopefully it means job gains in areas critical to the longer term programs.Still, if they must "preserve" shuttle jobs, Direct is a much more sensible way to go than Ares I/V.
vt_hokie - 3/4/2008 1:34 PMQuoteMB123 - 1/4/2008 9:48 PMI would expect him to have the courage. That is his job.Exactly. An ego that prevents one from admitting mistakes is not a trait of a good leader, imo. (And to make it clear, I'm not accusing Dr. Griffin of that, but just speaking in a generic sense.)